Trump is fine as long as he is in charge but this is a good example of him under a little pressure from tough questions. He knows this looks good to the base and he hates not being in full control of the media.

2112 - 11/8/2018 at 11:35 PM

Just another example of Trump taking a crap all over the constitution while his followers cheer him on.

OriginalGoober - 11/9/2018 at 12:41 AM

Jim Acosta: Do you consider the caravan an invasion?

Trump: YES

end of story. Press briefings are not the Jim Acosta show. As soon as he kept talking after President Trump answered his question by injecting his own personal beliefs he should of been shut down.

OriginalGoober - 11/9/2018 at 12:51 AM

CNN is free to send another reporter in as well

MartinD28 - 11/9/2018 at 12:58 AM

quote: Jim Acosta: Do you consider the caravan an invasion?

Trump: YES

end of story. Press briefings are not the Jim Acosta show. As soon as he kept talking after President Trump answered his question by injecting his own personal beliefs he should of been shut down.

No, not really, goob. Not end of story.

They are not the Banana Republic Don Show either. Somebody needs to remind Dictator Wannabe Don that this isn't The Apprentice. This is a time for real questions & answers - some of which are admittedly factually challenging for Trump to answer. However, we live in a country with a free press, and that doesn't give Trump free reign to go off on rants or rages, which he does all the time.

Very classy how he also went after Republicans that didn't embrace him and lost. MAGA.

[Edited on 11/9/2018 by MartinD28]
gina - 11/14/2018 at 12:57 AM

CNN is suing to get Jim Acosta's pass restores and requesting a restraining order against him being barred from the press conferences. Bringing up Constitutional rights.

Remarks: Suing the President and members of his administration, all of this is a waste of taxpayer money.

1. Does a President have to allow a reporter who he does not like because the reporters opinions differ from his because of free speech?

2. Reporters are supposed to be objective and not put a slant on their questions when asking them.

3. Does a President have a right to decide who is allowed to come from the various news sources to the meetings? Can he request a different reporter if he wants to? Can he refuse to accept questions from a reporter he has a problem with?

The networks will certainly put their spin on events and answers to their questions, but the questions themselves should be objective and seeking to fact find not just start with a pre-conceived premis and then try to prove that by the questions and answers received.

The Pakistani media did a good job when they interviewed Osama, they would tell him what was said and then ask him 'what do you have to say about this?" They remained neutral in their reporting which is why it was better than US reporting which tried to convince you of their talking points. The British reporters do the same, they present information to the person they want to ask questions of and then they allow that person to answer the questions. There needs to be more decorum from the media. They should ask their questions then report the FULL quotes on what was said not edit and then try to sway public opinion to suit their own agenda.

If good manners prevail, there should not be a conflict in a White House press or any other breifing.

[Edited on 11/14/2018 by gina]

MartinD28 - 11/14/2018 at 02:07 AM

quote:CNN is suing to get Jim Acosta's pass restores and requesting a restraining order against him being barred from the press conferences. Bringing up Constitutional rights.

Remarks: Suing the President and members of his administration, all of this is a waste of taxpayer money.

1. Does a President have to allow a reporter who he does not like because the reporters opinions differ from his because of free speech?

2. Reporters are supposed to be objective and not put a slant on their questions when asking them.

3. Does a President have a right to decide who is allowed to come from the various news sources to the meetings? Can he request a different reporter if he wants to? Can he refuse to accept questions from a reporter he has a problem with?

The networks will certainly put their spin on events and answers to their questions, but the questions themselves should be objective and seeking to fact find not just start with a pre-conceived premis and then try to prove that by the questions and answers received.

The Pakistani media did a good job when they interviewed Osama, they would tell him what was said and then ask him 'what do you have to say about this?" They remained neutral in their reporting which is why it was better than US reporting which tried to convince you of their talking points. The British reporters do the same, they present information to the person they want to ask questions of and then they allow that person to answer the questions. There needs to be more decorum from the media. They should ask their questions then report the FULL quotes on what was said not edit and then try to sway public opinion to suit their own agenda.

If good manners prevail, there should not be a conflict in a White House press or any other breifing.

[Edited on 11/14/2018 by gina]

Yours seems like a post for a banana republic.

This strategy of Trump, Sanders, Conway, etc. is nothing more than reinforcing the idea that in a free country like ours, those 3 consider the press & media the enemy of the people because "truth" and "facts" are mutually exclusive with this administration.

The results of the election and rejection of Trump has put his anger & frustration over the top. Wait until the HOR starts doing overtsight in January - something that has been absent the last 2 years. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Enjoy your retirement after being a lackey for Donnie for 2 years.
BIGV - 11/14/2018 at 04:25 AM

quote: Somebody needs to remind Dictator Wannabe Don that this isn't The Apprentice.

Somebody needs to remind any reporter from any news affiliate that when the President says "Next question", that is exactly what he means
nebish - 11/14/2018 at 04:47 AM

quote: If good manners prevail, there should not be a conflict in a White House press or any other breifing.

That was funny.
MartinD28 - 11/14/2018 at 02:42 PM

quote:

quote: Somebody needs to remind Dictator Wannabe Don that this isn't The Apprentice.

Somebody needs to remind any reporter from any news affiliate that when the President says "Next question", that is exactly what he means

So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out? He has a hard time accepting facts & truth. It is much easier to bash reporters than acknowledge facts or ever being wrong.
BIGV - 11/14/2018 at 04:13 PM

quote: So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out?

He does not bother me as much as CNN and far less than Hillary would have.
MartinD28 - 11/14/2018 at 04:20 PM

quote:

quote: So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out?

He does not bother me as much as CNN and far less than Hillary would have.

That should surprise no one. I guess Trump trumps the first and fifth amendments? Those are freedoms that anyone of any party affiliation should be concerned with.

How long will Hillary be a topic for you & goob - for eternity? She is no longer relevant.
2112 - 11/14/2018 at 04:40 PM

quote:

quote:

quote: So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out?

He does not bother me as much as CNN and far less than Hillary would have.

That should surprise no one. I guess Trump trumps the first and fifth amendments? Those are freedoms that anyone of any party affiliation should be concerned with.

How long will Hillary be a topic for you & goob - for eternity? She is no longer relevant.

Well, Republicans still bring up Jimmy Carter, so I would say Hillary will remain a hot topic for Republicans for the next 38 years.
2112 - 11/14/2018 at 04:46 PM

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote: So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out?

He does not bother me as much as CNN and far less than Hillary would have.

That should surprise no one. I guess Trump trumps the first and fifth amendments? Those are freedoms that anyone of any party affiliation should be concerned with.

How long will Hillary be a topic for you & goob - for eternity? She is no longer relevant.

Well, Republicans still bring up Jimmy Carter, so I would say Hillary will remain a hot topic for Republicans for the next 38 years.

And besides, how do you expect Republicans to defend Trump without bringing up Hillary? Trump is a disaster, so they can only defend him by bringing up a hypothetical scenario that in their minds could have been worse.
BIGV - 11/14/2018 at 05:08 PM

quote:

quote:

quote: So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out?

He does not bother me as much as CNN and far less than Hillary would have.

That should surprise no one. I guess Trump trumps the first and fifth amendments? Those are freedoms that anyone of any party affiliation should be concerned with.

How long will Hillary be a topic for you & goob - for eternity? She is no longer relevant.

Fair enough, seems to bother you more than me. I brought up her name for the contrast; it's obvious we will never see eye to eye and that's OK.

Enjoy the day.
MartinD28 - 11/14/2018 at 08:06 PM

quote:

quote:

quote:

quote: So you are good with his rants and condescending manner in which he addresses reporters when he is in defensive posturing mode and lashing out?

He does not bother me as much as CNN and far less than Hillary would have.

That should surprise no one. I guess Trump trumps the first and fifth amendments? Those are freedoms that anyone of any party affiliation should be concerned with.

How long will Hillary be a topic for you & goob - for eternity? She is no longer relevant.

Fair enough, seems to bother you more than me. I brought up her name for the contrast; it's obvious we will never see eye to eye and that's OK.

Enjoy the day.

What do Libertarians think of Trump stepping on first & fifth amendment freedoms of the press?
BIGV - 11/14/2018 at 09:55 PM

quote: What do Libertarians think of Trump stepping on first & fifth amendment freedoms of the press?

I do not speak for anyone but myself.

Watch the video. A young female intern approaches Jim Acosta and attempts to take the Microphone away from him 3 times and is brushed aside. The President told him 6 times that, "That is enough" and still he pushed with his line of questioning. I hope the Intern sues him for assault.

I have zero empathy for anyone, representing and media organization who acts like that.
MartinD28 - 11/14/2018 at 10:16 PM

quote:

quote: What do Libertarians think of Trump stepping on first & fifth amendment freedoms of the press?

I do not speak for anyone but myself.

Watch the video. A young female intern approaches Jim Acosta and attempts to take the Microphone away from him 3 times and is brushed aside. The President told him 6 times that, "That is enough" and still he pushed with his line of questioning. I hope the Intern sues him for assault.

I have zero empathy for anyone, representing and media organization who acts like that.

Zero empathy is one thing. That reflects opinions & feelings. The question is not about lack of empathy but about a Libertarian interpretation of Trump's attempted trampling on the first & fifth amendments of The Constitution.

If we want to relegate to empathy or lack of, then we only need to look at Trump calling out 3 black female reporters.

President Trump has made no secret of his contempt for reporters, whom he calls “fake news” and “enemy of the American people.” He’s also had unkind things to say about women and people who are African American.

This week, he hit a trifecta, singling out three African American women who are journalists. The women — Abby Phillip, April Ryan and Yamiche Alcindor — earned his contempt apparently just for asking him questions.

Trump called one of Phillip’s questions “stupid,” described Ryan as “a loser” and brushed off Alcindor, saying her question was “racist.”

“What a stupid question that is. What a stupid question,” Trump snapped. He didn’t answer the allegedly “stupid” question, but he did pour more contempt on Phillip. “I watch you a lot,” he said. “You ask a lot of stupid questions.”

He suggested he was considering pulling other reporters’ press credentials to cover the White House, as he did with CNN reporter Jim Acosta on Wednesday. Among those he brought up in that context was Ryan.

April Ryan, White House correspondent for American Urban Radio Networks, this year. (Kristoffer Tripplaar/For The Washington Post)

“You talk about someone who’s a loser,” Trump said of Ryan, a reporter for American Urban Radio Networks and a contributor to CNN. “She doesn’t know what the hell she’s doing. She gets publicity and then she gets a pay raise, or she gets a contract with, I think, CNN. But she’s very nasty and she shouldn’t be. You’ve got to treat the White House and the office of the presidency with respect.”

Trump’s “loser” comment came two days after he admonished Ryan at a White House news conference.

A few moments later, Alcindor asked Trump about his recent characterization of himself as “a nationalist” and whether that label was “emboldening white nationalists.”

Trump interrupted her and responded, “I don’t know why you say that, that is such a racist question.” He repeated that characterization — “racist” — two more times.
Trump slams Jim Acosta, April Ryan
President Trump on Nov. 9 called CNN's Jim Acosta an "unprofessional guy" and American Urban Radio Networks' April Ryan "a loser." (The Washington Post)

Trump has disparaged many people, so his responses to Phillip, Ryan and Alcindor might simply reflect equal-opportunity contempt. But all three of the latest examples fall into the categories of people — journalists, women, African Americans — for whom Trump has reserved special nastiness. Among the African American figures are Democratic Reps. Maxine Waters of California and Frederica S. Wilson of Florida.

“He’s not able to finesse his disdain for certain people,” Ryan said in an interview Friday. “Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately because you can see for yourself what it is, perception is reality with this president.&#8201;.&#8201;. He attacks the people he feels are beneath him.”

She added, “He’s not apparently built for this. Being in the pressure cooker of the White House has exposed him for what he is.”

Phillip didn’t respond to several requests for comment on Friday. Alcindor declined to comment but tweeted after Wednesday’s news conference, “I followed up the president calling my question ‘racist’ with a policy question about his proposed middle class tax cut because that’s what journalists do. We press on. We focus on the privilege of asking questions for a living. We do the work.”

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The attacks on the three women left Sarah Glover, the president of the National Association of Black Journalists, shaking her head.

“The most powerful man in the free world is verbally abusing journalists,” she said. “Donald Trump’s comments this week have reached an all-time low with attacks on three black female journalists.”

She called Trump’s comments about Ryan, Phillip and Alcindor “appalling and irresponsible. They should be denounced.”BrerRabbit - 11/14/2018 at 10:17 PM

Trump can dish it out but he can't take it.

BIGV - 11/14/2018 at 10:19 PM

You don't like President Trump and I am elated that Hillary is not in the Oval office.

We'll call it a draw.

BrerRabbit - 11/14/2018 at 10:24 PM

Has zero to do with liking him or not. He is going down. You don't like him either.

cyclone88 - 11/14/2018 at 11:14 PM

quote:
What do Libertarians think of Trump stepping on first & fifth amendment freedoms of the press?

I can't answer that question, but am stumped how the 5th amendment affects freedom of the press.
gina - 11/14/2018 at 11:23 PM

quote: Jim Acosta: Do you consider the caravan an invasion?

Trump: YES

end of story. Press briefings are not the Jim Acosta show. As soon as he kept talking after President Trump answered his question by injecting his own personal beliefs he should of been shut down.

Goob is right that a reporter cannot put his/her personal beliefs in an interview. They can only ask questions and report the responses that the interviewee or speech giver provides to them. The reporter can tell the person they are asking questions of what someone has said or about an event or policy and then ask their opinion or plan for a response or change but they cannot tell that person how anything should be.

gina - 11/14/2018 at 11:24 PM

quote:

quote:
What do Libertarians think of Trump stepping on first & fifth amendment freedoms of the press?

I can't answer that question, but am stumped how the 5th amendment affects freedom of the press.

The lawsuit CNN has launched mentions the 1st and 5th amendments. It was reported tonite that other news organizations are also joining the suit. The persecution continues.

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

Seventh Amendment
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.

Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Comment: Perhaps they felt Mr. Acosta could not be banned or have his official credentials revoked without their being some sort of formal hearing and having it proven he did anything unlawful. If he mentioned the Russian investigation then that brings up potential/possible illegal acts that could have been committed by government officials. Trump was not the only one named in the lawsuit, that is why this is so disturbing. I think General Kelly was mentioned as well so there is a military component.

[Edited on 11/15/2018 by gina]

MartinD28 - 11/15/2018 at 12:09 AM

quote:

quote:
What do Libertarians think of Trump stepping on first & fifth amendment freedoms of the press?

I can't answer that question, but am stumped how the 5th amendment affects freedom of the press.

Well, I'm not a lawyer so possibly the wording of the question I posed should have separated fifth amendment out of the the "freedom of the press" portion of the original question and instead raised the violation of the fifth amendment as a question unto itself.

When the original lawsuit was brought by CNN & Acosta, those of us who are not lawyers and want to better understand the basis & meanings of this try to read up to obtain that understanding of what has transpired and what the legal argument is. It would seem that CNN would have a pretty decent staff of lawyers to move forward with this case.

For us laymen, one of the better paragraphs I found to understand the basis follows:

"In addition, as veteran First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told CNN, case law in the US has established that before a press pass is revoked or denied, “you have to have notice, you have to have a chance to respond, and you have to have a written opinion by the White House as to what it’s doing and why, so the courts can examine it.” None of those things occurred in this case, which is why the CNN lawsuit argues withdrawing Acosta’s pass is a breach of the Fifth Amendment."
gina - 11/15/2018 at 12:13 AM

Tomorrow, Thursday 11-15-18 at 3 p.m. US District Court Judge Timothy Kelly will issue a ruling.

Update 5:40 p.m. EST Nov. 14: The judge in the CNN lawsuit against President Donald Trump and other administration officials over banning reporter Jim Acosta from the White House said he’ll issue a ruling Thursday at 3 p.m., according to news outlets.

Jay Wallace, President of Fox: "Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized," Wallace said. "While we don't condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people."

"In addition, as veteran First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told CNN, case law in the US has established that before a press pass is revoked or denied, “you have to have notice, you have to have a chance to respond, and you have to have a written opinion by the White House as to what it’s doing and why, so the courts can examine it.” None of those things occurred in this case, which is why the CNN lawsuit argues withdrawing Acosta’s pass is a breach of the Fifth Amendment."

Thanks for taking the time to provide that. No question about it being a 1st amendment issue & Abrams would've been a far better choice than Ted Olson to represent CNN. I read the complaint & Abrams in your link makes a more compelling argument than Olson does re 5th. Guess we'll wait until tomorrow.
MartinD28 - 11/16/2018 at 05:28 PM

For all of that rage from the right about “assault” they didn’t argue it in court.

gina - 11/16/2018 at 06:09 PM

They have to go by the rules of law in court. They can't use opinions and complain about it not being fair.

I think reporters need to frame their questions with decorum and ask what the President has to say about anything they bring up, or ask about future responses, plans, policy changes or enforcement but the 'you did this' interrogation type questioning can't continue.

I gave the example of the Paki reporters and Osama, regarding the bombing of the Khobar Towers one reporter said to him 'the Saudis think you did that, what do you have to say about it'? They did not ask did you do it? Or accuse him putting him in a defensive mode. They put it in a more gentler way and he responded "I did not do that, Iranian intelligence did that attack". I remember when the Afghan Islamic Press on 9-12-01 asked him about 9-11-01, they told him 'the Americans are saying you did this attack, what do you have to say about it?' and his answer was "I had nothing to do with that explosion". The point is even interviewing someone such as Osama, there are ways to do it.

Why can't reporters ask Trump questions without pissing him off? They ask a question and then do not let him sufficiently answer it before they start talking over him, or they refuse to accept his answer and keep hammering on the point they want to make. Reporters should not be making points on someone they are questioning, they should ask questions and allow the person to respond, not cutting them off and berating them. That is what interrogation is, and an interview is NOT an interrogation.

AN INTERVIEW IS NOT AN INTERROGATION, and cannot be conducted in the same way.

As to the revocation of the press credentials, that went too far, I think if Mr. Acosta pissed the President off enough he could have been asked to leave the briefing and then a private meeting could have been held with him to explain why he was ejected from the meeting.

Some of the press briefings were like a three ring circus witchhunt in the early days. That cannot be.

[Edited on 11/16/2018 by gina]

cyclone88 - 11/16/2018 at 07:02 PM

No big win. Certainly no victory for freedom of the press. Acosta got his pass back temporarily & judge didn't touch the 1st amendment arguments. He did the minimum & used the 5th amendment test set out in a precedent. Trump could, if he wanted to belabor the point, satisfy the requirements & revoke the pass again. My guess is that DJT will ignore Acosta in the future. As both sides pointed out, CNN didn't suffer any harm because they have 50 other WH reporters. Acosta didn't suffer any harm because he still has the same job w/no reduction in hours or pay. The public didn't suffer any harm because Acosta of CNN is not the sole news source in the world.

What I found interesting was that lots of other organizations "supported" CNN, but none actually filed an amicus brief as was expected (or at least they haven't been made available yet). Only the White House Correspondents Association filed in support of CNN.

This whole system of passes distributed by the Secret Service seems antiquated to me. Now, we have the judiciary ordering the executive branch to make rules of conduct for press conferences - a bit too much government interference for me. My guess is that DJT is going to make the rules as ordered & then stop holding conferences.

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Trump wants to muzzle the press like dogs then acts all shocked when they start acting like dogs. Power to them, someone's got to call out this charlatan. Vive le press libre!

Judge Kavanaugh was denied the presumption of innocence and due process by the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.

As it turns out all the allegations were lies.

Acosta is an a-hole and many members of the White House Press Corp. also want him out.

Oh well, now he will have to abide by standards of conduct and decorum.

.

There was no presumption of innocence because this was a job interview, not a trial. Nothing was proven either way because that was not the point of the proceedings.

If everyone feels that way about Acosta, why did all of the other news companies, including Fox News, file amicus briefs supporting him.

The standards of decorum are not legality binding for anything. And the Administration will also have to abide by them. That won’t last 10 minutes.

Now that you are back, I guess we have to live with your constant lies and imaginations of how the world works.

What Judge Kavanaugh was put through was not a "job interview", it was a confirmation hearing which he passed even though the Democrats tried to destroy him with lies. Every one of the false accusations were proven to be lies.

As per the judge that ruled Acosta be given his hard pass back he must also abide by the standards of conduct as written by the White House.

No one has a "right" to enter the White House grounds. That is a privilege extended by the Administration.

Many White House Press Corp. members have been complaining about Acosta's speech-making, asking endless questions and refusing to give up the microphone.

Now Acosta will be given a new set of rules of conduct, will have to sign for them and abide by them.BrerRabbit - 11/18/2018 at 11:33 PM

"No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Trump wants to muzzle the press like dogs then acts all shocked when they start acting like dogs. Power to them, someone's got to call out this charlatan. Vive le press libre!

Judge Kavanaugh was denied the presumption of innocence and due process by the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.

As it turns out all the allegations were lies.

Acosta is an a-hole and many members of the White House Press Corp. also want him out.

Oh well, now he will have to abide by standards of conduct and decorum.

.

There was no presumption of innocence because this was a job interview, not a trial. Nothing was proven either way because that was not the point of the proceedings.

If everyone feels that way about Acosta, why did all of the other news companies, including Fox News, file amicus briefs supporting him.

The standards of decorum are not legality binding for anything. And the Administration will also have to abide by them. That won’t last 10 minutes.

Now that you are back, I guess we have to live with your constant lies and imaginations of how the world works.

What Judge Kavanaugh was put through was not a "job interview", it was a confirmation hearing which he passed even though the Democrats tried to destroy him with lies. Every one of the false accusations were proven to be lies.

As per the judge that ruled Acosta be given his hard pass back he must also abide by the standards of conduct as written by the White House.

No one has a "right" to enter the White House grounds. That is a privilege extended by the Administration.

Many White House Press Corp. members have been complaining about Acosta's speech-making, asking endless questions and refusing to give up the microphone.

Now Acosta will be given a new set of rules of conduct, will have to sign for them and abide by them.

Swing and a miss.

The Kavanaugh hearings were interviews to determine whether he was fit to be on the Supreme Court. Ergo, a job interview. Your point of being denied presumption of innocence, by your own remarks, does not exist in this case.

The judge did not say that. The judge said that the Administration denied Acosta's 1st and 5th Amendment rights. They have to establish rules of etiquette that both sides must adhere to. That includes Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. That will work out well I'm sure.

Everyone has the right to enter the White House grounds. The WH belongs to the people, not Donald Trump.

Please show us a link to all of these complaints about Acosta. You won't because they don't exist.

As Acosta won the suit, he has to sign nothing. BTW, the judge said that SHS probably lied when she said Acosta put his hands on the woman. I know, someone in this Admin was found to be lying by a judge. That hasn't happened in at least 2 weeks.

Muleman1994 - 11/18/2018 at 11:54 PM

The Kavanaugh hearings were interviews to determine whether he was fit to be on the Supreme Court. Ergo, a job interview. Your point of being denied presumption of innocence, by your own remarks, does not exist in this case.

- The Senate’s responsibility is to advise and consent. That “job interview” crap came from the Democrats and the corrupt liberal media.

The judge did not say that. The judge said that the Administration denied Acosta's 1st and 5th Amendment rights. They have to establish rules of etiquette that both sides must adhere to. That includes Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. That will work out well I'm sure.

- “that both sides must adhere to. That includes Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders” does not appear in the judge’s ruling. You are a liar.

Everyone has the right to enter the White House grounds. The WH belongs to the people, not Donald Trump.

- Not even close son. Go ahead and try walking onto the grounds. The Secret Service will have you down on the ground crying.

Please show us a link to all of these complaints about Acosta. You won't because they don't exist.

- Widely reported by legitimate news. Get informed.

As Acosta won the suit, he has to sign nothing. BTW, the judge said that SHS probably lied when she said Acosta put his hands on the woman. I know, someone in this Admin was found to be lying by a judge. That hasn't happened in at least 2 weeks.

- Acoata will have to sing acknowledging receipt.

sckeys - 11/19/2018 at 12:35 AM

MAGA- Media Ain’t Going Away

jkeller - 11/19/2018 at 01:09 AM

“Widely reported”. But he can’t find a link. I’ll continue to discuss things with people who are not misanthropes. Others are not worth anyone’s time.

cyclone88 - 11/19/2018 at 01:37 AM

quote:Swing and a miss.

The Kavanaugh hearings were interviews to determine whether he was fit to be on the Supreme Court. Ergo, a job interview. Your point of being denied presumption of innocence, by your own remarks, does not exist in this case.

The judge did not say that. The judge said that the Administration denied Acosta's 1st and 5th Amendment rights. They have to establish rules of etiquette that both sides must adhere to. That includes Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders. That will work out well I'm sure.

Everyone has the right to enter the White House grounds. The WH belongs to the people, not Donald Trump.

Please show us a link to all of these complaints about Acosta. You won't because they don't exist.

As Acosta won the suit, he has to sign nothing. BTW, the judge said that SHS probably lied when she said Acosta put his hands on the woman. I know, someone in this Admin was found to be lying by a judge. That hasn't happened in at least 2 weeks.

JK, I usually agree w/you, but having read both briefs and the judge's order, the judge himself said he didn't decide the merits of the case. He punted. He didn't say anyone's rights were violated. He said there were no clear conduct guidelines by which the press had to abide so until Acosta got them & violated them, he got his pass back. Assuming everyone behaves, it's ultimately the Secret Service's call who gets into the WH.

No one "won" anything. Acosta may be in the room, but I wonder how quickly DJT will call on him.

Boring. Looks like the sitcommies need a new scriptwriter, their show is stale. No way they will last another season.

MartinD28 - 11/19/2018 at 05:23 PM

quote:Boring. Looks like the sitcommies need a new scriptwriter, their show is stale. No way they will last another season.

Here's another Trump diversion.

Trump condemned William McRaven - the retired 4 start Navy Admiral & long time Seal who took down OSB. And why not? Trump tells us he knows more than the Generals, writes his own responses to Mueller...so it goes w/out saying with all of Trump's background & knowledge in foreign affairs, intelligence, and military operations that he should certainly question another American Military hero.

That Fox interview was something. Why not go to Arlington? He was busy “making calls for the country” and for him to gripe so much about NFL players and the flag, his handling of that WW1 memorial was pitiful. Now he critizes the OSB take down. Regardless if it was a Bush or George Washington plan, Obama was a major part of that. And Trump hates it.